HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/17/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (32) • DATE: March 17, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager-Administration
SUBJECT: Development User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council hold the public hearing and approve a Resolution
adopting the 2003/04 Development User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan setting
certain fees to offset the City's administrative costs in processing permits, licenses,
subdivision maps and entitlements
SUMMARY:
State law requires that fees charged by local agencies be reasonably related to the
actual cost of providing the service. Last year, the City retained MuniFinancial to
perform a comprehensive study of the fees charged by the City's Building, Planning
• and Engineering departments. That study determined that the existing fees charged
by these departments are significantly lower than the City's actual cost of providing the
service.
BACKGROUND:
As fiscal limitations are imposed on local governments, user fees have become an
important source of revenue to cities in California. A user fee, or service fee, is a
payment made by an individual for a service that primarily benefits the individual.
User fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the
California Constitution and the California Code of Regulations, including Government
Code Section 66000 et. seq. By law, user fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of
the service for which they are collected unless the excess fees are approved by a two-
thirds (2/3) vote of the electorate.
In October 2003, the City retained a consultant, MuniFinancial, to prepare a
Development User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan ,(hereinafter the Study) to
calculate and set fees to recover the full cost of providing various development-related
services.
The Study's work plan was guided by the City's objective of identifying the full cost of
• each service for which a user fee may be charged. In order to do this, the consultant
analyzed three cost factors, which, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost
1
of providing a given unit of service. These costs factors include:
• . Direct Labor. Employee hours spent directly on the fee-related service. This
rate includes the employee's salary and fringe benefits.
• Departmental Indirect Labor. Departmental employees not directly working on
the fee-related service, but responsible for supervision and administrative
activities. This cost layer includes secretarial support staff and a portion of the
department head's time.
• Central Overhead. This layer includes those departments that provide support
to other City departments. Examples are: City Attorney, City Manager, Finance
and Human Resources.
Once the direct and indirect costs associated with providing various services had been
identified, the City's consultant met with each department to review the current
development and non-development user fees and the amount of staff time spent on
fee-generating activities.
The consultant has since identified and assigned costs to over 75 existing, new or
modified fee services. In most cases, the consultant found that current fees do not
cover the actual cost incurred by the City in rendering the service. In fact, according to
• the consultant's findings, the City's General Fund is currently subsidizing development
activities by as much as $452,000 a year.
Analysis
The City's consultant has prepared a fee model based on the study's objectives and
the data collected. A copy of the consultant's study and corresponding fee tables are
attached to the Resolution. In reviewing the consultant's recommendations, staff is in
general agreement to recover 100% of the costs of providing fee-related services.
There are, however, several instances where staff has lowered the fee
recommendation. Specifically, staff believes that there is a policy interest to charge
less than 100% of costs on certain services when, in staffs opinion, the homeowner
could be adversely affected. For example, staff is recommending that the several fees
including those for residential antenna permits, garage sale permits, appeals, and
minor architectural review be set at less than 100% of costs.
The study includes a fee model for each department which lists the service or
application for which the fee is being charged, the current fee and the proposed new
fee. In addition, the proposed fee model adds several new fees and makes other
modifications to the existing fee structure. These changes include:
•
2
• Implementation of the new General Plan Maintenance Fee to fund the annual cost
• of maintaining the City's General Plan and related elements. Institution of this fee
will add $0.61 per $1,000 building construction valuation to each building permit.
• Three minor new Planning fees are recommended to recover costs:
1. Categorical Exemption — An environmental application asserting that a
development is exempt from CEQA review due to the land use category.
Proposed fee: $170.
2. Final Landscaping Plan Check — Review of landscaping plans. Proposed
fee: $480.
3. Parcel Map Waiver—Waiver of map requirement. Proposed fee: $540.
• Other proposed changes with nominal fiscal impact include:
1. Institution of a deposit based fee for processing Annexation applications.
2. Institution of a deposit based fee for verifying that mitigation measures are
viable and working.
3. Creation of a Final Planned Development District fee.
• Increases to Engineering's hourly rate based fees.
• • Elimination of the following Engineering fees:
1. Appeal of Determination Filing ($15)
2. Flood Insurance Rate Map Determination ($15)
• Building fees that are based on the hourly rate for inspections and plan check are
adjusted to correspond with an incremental increase in the hourly rate. The
consultant is recommending that all building services be recovered on a time and
materials basis. The fee study has determined the actual hourly rate for Building
services to be $109. Based on the recommended hourly rates, the estimated
future Building revenues will likely increase by approximately 15%.
• Institution of an Expedited Application fee. Applicants who request that a particular
application be processed in an expedited timeframe would be charged for the
actual time at a rate of one and a half times the normal rate.
• Implementation of a new Technology Enhancement Fee. This fee will be applied to
each building permit and is designed to fund the cost of new technology required to
maintain a high level of service. Institution of this fee would add $1.30 per every
$1,000 in valuation to the cost of a building permit.
• In addition to the current fee proposal, staff further recommends that fees shall be
adjusted annually beginning on July 1, 2005, and for each succeeding July 1, by the
3
annual percentage difference in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") as of July 1 for all
• urban workers for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside metropolitan area. This
provision will allow our fees to keep pace with increased costs without having to do a
complete study each year.
Included in the consultant's study are comparisons of the current and proposed fees
for, and where available, a comparison to the fees charged by other cities in the
Coachella Valley and the County of Riverside. In addition, the City's Planning and
Zoning Department has prepared an actual project comparison using both the existing
user fees charged by the Department and the consultant's final fee recommendation.
A copy of this comparative matrix is attached.
The City's consultant has worked closely with the local Building Industry Association
(BIA) over the past several weeks to identify issues of concern regarding the study and
the proposed fees. The BIA has suggested several changes to the fee model which
have been incorporated into the final study. Although the BIA has indicated that they
would prefer that the City use actual versus budget information in calculating costs, we
believe that the BIA generally supports the study and the proposed fees.
On a final note, the City's consultant has compared the proposed fee model to a
residential development fee study that was recently completed by the local BIA. Using
the data from the BIA's study, the proposed fee model will result in a nominal increase
of $751 per new residential unit. A copy of the fee table showing the cost difference
per unit under the existing and proposed fees is attached. On a per unit basis, the
City's total fees, even after the proposed fee increase, will still be well within the norm
of fees charged by other cities in the Coachella Valley.
4istaL
F
nt Cit ager
APPROVED: DNZ
yM r
ATTACHMENTS:
. 1. Department of Planning and Zoning Actual Project Fee Comparison
2. BIA's Residential Development Fee Study Per Unit Matrix with Proposed Fee Data
3. Resolution Adopting Development User Fee Study
4
Department of Planning and Zoning -2004 Fee Study
Actual Project Fee Comparison
A lication GurientFee: 1s#Recdimmettdat�on. "Finat:Recoininen_datiorr
Mountain Gate Planned Development District $1,575 $8,720 $6,910
Major AA $1,260 N/A N/A
Tentative Tract Map $1,575 $9,7010 $3,850
Environmental Assessment $790 $6,050 $4,800
Public Hearing Notice $524 $524 $565
TOTAL $5 724 $24,994 $16,125
DIFFERENCE $19,270 $10,401
Community Church Townhomes Planned Development District $1,575 $8,720 $3,460
Major AA $1,260 N/A N/A
Tentative Tract Map $1,575 $9,700 $3,850
General Plan Amendment $1,575 $5,710 $5,660
Environmental Assessment $790 $4,300 $3,410
Public Hearing Notice $362 $362 $484
TOTAL $7,137 $28,792 $16,864
DIFFERENCE $21,655 $9,727
Social Security Building Major AA over 5 ac $1,050 $3,340 $3,310
Tentative Parcel Map $1,050 $7,690 $6,100
Environmental Assessment $790 $6,050 $4,800
Public Hearing Notice $329 $329 $467
TOTAL $3,219 $17,409 $14,677
DIFFERENCE $14,190 $11,458
Telecommunications Antenna Conditional Use Permit Type II $1,575 $5,150 $5,110
Major AA $1,050 N/A N/A
Public Hearing Notice $161 $161 $383
_ TOTAL $2,786 $5,31'1 $5,493
DIFFERENCE $2,525 $2,707
Sunrise Square Shopping Center remodel Major AA 50 tto 5 ac $1,050 $2,850 $1,500
TOTAL $1,050 $2,850 $1,500
DIFFERENCE $1,800 $450
Vista Court Conditional Use Permit Type 1 $1,575 $4,370 $4,340
Major AA $1,050 N/A N/A
Tentative Tract Map $1,575 $9,700 $3,850
TOTAL $4,200 $14,070 $8,190
DIFFERENCE $9,870 $3,990
PO of 2 •
Department of Planning and Zoning - 2004 Fee Study
Actual Project Fee Comparison
PfdjectNarrie A lication ..: - Current Fee *=1stRecommendation4, FinaF-rnnriendationl.
Parker Meridien Hotel remodel Minor AA-PC 1 $210 $650 1 $600
TOTAL $210 $650 $500
DIFFERENCE $440 $290
FedEx Ground Facility Major AA over 5 ac $1,050 $3,, $3,310
Environmental Assessment $790 $6,050 $4,800
TOTAL $1,840 $9,390 $81110
DIFFERENCE $7,550 $6,270
Hillside Single Family Residence Major AA-SFD hillside $790 $2,690 $2,660
TOTAL $790 $2,693 $2,660
DIFFERENCE $1,900 $1,870
Non-Hillside Single Family Residence Major AA-SFD non hillside s-79o---T $1,420 1 $1,410
TOTAL $790 $1,420 1 $1,410
DIFFERENCE $630 $620
Destination Ramon Planned Development District $1,575 $3,720 $6,910
Tentative Parcel Map $1,050 $7,690 $3,050
Major AA $1,260 N/A N/A
Environmental Impact Report $10,369 $10,369 $10,369
Public Hearing Notice $55+$2/parcel $55+$2/parcel $55+$1/parcel+$275.25
_ TOTAL $14,254 $26,779 $20,329
DIFFERENCE $12,525 $6,075
HamburgerMary's Staff-Sin Ie n $105 $290 $115
TOTAL $105 $290 $115
DIFFERENCE $185 $10
Signature Theatres Sign-Planning Commission $210 $490 $250
TO 90TAL $210 $4 $250
DIFFERENCE $280 $40
NOTES:
1. New PD/CUP fee inclusive of Architectural Approval fee
2.Tentative Maps processed concurrent with PD/CUP are discounted 50% due to redundancy of tasks
3. Public hearing costs based on 1/8 and 1/4 page ads in The Desert Sun. Fast track projects typically require a 114 page ad.
0
1 PS of 2 •
Palm Springs 1999 Data 2003 Data 2003 Data
(current) (with 2004 fee adoption)
Buildin Valuation
Houses .ft. 2500 x $65,50 2500 x 79.85 2500 x 79.85
Gara e s .ft 400 x $22.50 400 x 24.30 400 x 24.30
Air Condidtionin 2500 x 3.50 2500 x 3.50
Per Unit Total Subdivision Per Unit Total Subdivisioi Per Unit Total Subdivision
House . $19 $9,981,25
9,0 75
, 0 , , , 0
Gara a 000 .00
$450,000.00 $9,720.00 $486,000.00 $9,720,00 $486005.00
Air Conditioning $0.001 $0.001 $8,750.001 $437,500.001 $8,750.00 $437:500.00
Total Valuation $172,750.00 $8,617,500.00 $218,095.00 $10,904,750.00 $218,095.00 $10,904,750.00
Building Permit
Building Fee $443.27 $22,163.50 $500.45 $25,02250 $650.59 $32,529.25
Plan Check $105 71 $5,285.57 $160.76 $8,037 95 $208.99 $10,449.34
SMIP $17.27 $863.50 $25.00 $1,250,00 $25.00 $1,250.00
Microfilm $25.00 $1,250.00 $25.00 $1,250,00 $25.00 $1,250.00
Plan Check(Planning) $259.12 $12,956.00 $354.42 $17,721.00 $330.00 $16,500.00
Sewer Inspection $46.00 $2,300.00 $46.00 $2,300.00 $46.00 $2,300.00
Permit Issuance $60.00 $3,000.00 $60.00 $33000.00 $60.00 $3,000 00
Construction Permit $65,00 $3,250.00 $65.00 $3,25000 $15500 $7,750.00
Total $1,021.37 $51,068.57 $1,236.63 $61,831.45 $1,500.57 $75,028.59
Im act Fees
School Im act Fee $4,825.00 $241,250.00 $5,350.00 $267,500.00 $5,350.00 $267,500.00
TUMF $794.31 $39,715.50 $794 31 $39,715.50 $794.31 $39,715.50
Public Art Fee $431.88 $21,593 75 $623 67 $31,183 50 $623.67 $313183.50
Fringe-Toed Lizard Fee $120.00 $6,000 00 $120 00 $63000 00 $120.00 $6,000.00
Construction Tax $1,160.00 $58,000 00 $1,160.00 $58,000.00 $1,160 00 $58,000 00
Sewer Connection Fee $4,014.00 $2003700.00 $2,40800 $120,400.00 $2,408.00 $120,400.00
Water Connection Fee $3,500.00 $175,000.00 $2,665 00 $133,250.00 $2,665.00 $133,250.00
Drainage Fee $932.58 $46,629.00 $1,302.20 $65,110.00 $1,302.20 $65,110.00
• Total $16,777.77 $788,888.25 $14,423.18 $721,159.00 $14,423.18 $721,159.00
Environmental
Enronmn talFie act Re ort $11.00 $550 00 $16.80 $840.00 61.nnC m
ount line $Total $12.56 $628.00 $18.08 $904.00 $18.08 $904.00
Engineering
Grading Plan Check . $3,210.00 $64.20 $9500 $ ,540.00
$3,006 2 Street Imp. PC Fee $5945 , 725.00
Sewer Imp. PC Fee $39.001 $1.950001 $40.001 $2,000.001 $51.841 $2,592.00
Storm Drainage PC Fee $23.78 $1,189 00
Water PC Fee $0.90 . $2400 $1,2$4050.00 $ 43050 $3,725.00
0 00 $ 0 $150.0000 $ 5$45
Final Ma 27.50 5 0.00
Construction Permit 1 $153.131 $7,656.50 $358901 $17,945.001 $358.90 $17,945.00
Total $395.21 $19,760.50 $602.75 $30,137.50 $727.34 $36,367.00
Planning
Tentative Tract Ma $31.301 $1,565001 $32.801 $1,640.001 $194.001 $9,700.00
Zone Chan e Amendment $32.20 $1,610.00 $33.71 $1,685.00 $10800 $5,400.00
General Plan Amendment $30.70 $1,535.00 $32.20 $1,610.05 $114.20 $5,710.00
Ma'or ArchitecturalA rovmt $25.70 $1,285.00 $2690 $1,345.00 $66.80 $3,34000
Notification Fe es+Adverts $2.00 $100.00 $2.00 $100.00 $7.20 $360.00
Total $121.90 $6,096.00 $127.60 $6,380.00 $490.20 $24,510.00
Fees Total $866,440.32 $820,411.95 $857,968.59
Total Fees Per Unit $17,328.81 $16p4O8.24 $17,159.37
0
DEVELOPMENT USER,
FEE STUDY REPORT
FOR THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
MARCH 2O04
M
A WiLLDAN COMPANY
Anaheim Office
2125 East Katella Avenue Temecula, CA Phoenix, AZ
Suite 200 Industry, CA Sacramento, CA
Anaheim, CA 92806 Jacksonville, FL San Diego, CA
Tel: (714) 940-6390 Lancaster, CA Seattle, WA
Fax. (714) 940-4920 Oakland, CA
Washington, DC
www.muni.com
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents I
Introduction and Approach 2
Study Objectives 2
Policy Considerations 2
Approach 3
Cost of Service Analysis - Planning 7
Cost of Service Analysis - Engineering 13
Cost of Service Analysis - Building 17
Appendix A.- Hourly Rate Calculations 20
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOFPALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYKEPORT I
INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH
As more fiscal limitations are imposed on local governments in California,
user fees have become an important source of revenue for these jurisdictions.
A user fee, or service fee, is a payment made by an individual for a service
that primarily benefits the individual. Public agencies can impose a user fee
for a government service when (1) the individual's decision to use the service
is voluntary, and (2) the fee charged to an individual user is reasonably related
to the level of service rendered and the cost of providing that service.
User fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements
of the California Constitution and the California Code of Regulations,
including Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. Bylaw, user fees may not
exceed the reasonable costs of the services for which they are collected unless
the excess fees are approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.
The City believes that the current master fee schedule does not accurately
reflect the costs associated with the processing of fee-related services. In
many fee areas, the City has been under-collecting its user fees. As a result,
the City's General Ftmd has subsidized many services. For many service
areas, fees have not been updated in the last 10 to 15 years. Since the last
updates, the direct and indirect costs associated with service delivery have
risen with no corresponding increase in fees. Furthermore increased
requirements by the State have led to cost increases. To correct these
deficiencies, the City desires to update its master fee schedule.
The objective of this study is to provide the City's management with the
information required to mare appropriate pricing decisions.
Rolicy Considerations .
Economists and local government practitioners advocate the utilization of
user fees by local governments to finance certain public services that
primarily benefit the individual user. User charges apply to those individuals
who voluntarily consume services or use public facilities. User fees are
favored because they are means for additional revenues and can lead to
efficient allocation of resources.
City policy may dictate, within reason, which costs should be recovered and
to what degree through the collection of fees from service users. Most
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOFPALdf SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STuEYREPORT 2
jurisdictions desire to collect the full cost of staff labor that are associated
with the administration and processing of development-related services that
benefit individual applicants. In addition, most jurisdictions wish to recover
overhead costs associated with development related activity as well.
Overhead costs are necessary for the support and function of a city's
operating departments. Without administrative support and supplies, the
various operating departments could not function effectively for the
individuals they serve. However, overhead costs are often not recovered due
to a lack of overhead identification techniques.
Labor effort and costs associated with the provision of fee-related services
will fluctuate over time. Because of these inherent cost changes, it is
important for the City to implement a fee schedule that can be updated with
relative ease to reflect these changes. This is a critical feature of any user fee
schedule.
For this study, the City wishes to examine services provided by the
development service departments (i.e. building, engineering and planning)
iricluding services not currently generating fees. One purpose of the study is
to find those fee areas that are listed on the current fee schedule where no
service is provided and eliminate them. In addition, the study effort should
determine new fee areas and implement new fees for the corresponding
• services. The recommended fee schedule generated by this study includes
new fees, eliminates others and modifies certain categories of fees where it
makes the most sense in terms of ease of staff processing and cost tracking.
Escalator Index
The City of Patin Springs wishes to apply an annual adjustment factor to the
development fee schedules to ensure fees keep pace with inflation. We
recommend the Employee Cost Index for State and Local Government
Employees, Total Compensation as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Each year, the City shall determine the percentage change in this
index and apply the increase or decrease to the master fee schedule by act of
City ordinance or resolution. Certain fees are exempt from an index
adjustment, such as fees set by the State of California and percentage based
fees, and these fees are noted in the master fee schedule. Every five years the
City should conduct a comprehensive cost of service analysis to ensure fees
are set appropriately.
'Approach
• Two methods of analysis have been used in this engagement:
• Case Study Method This approach estimates the direct and indirect labor
and material costs associated with providing a unit of service (permit or
MuNIFINANcrAL QTYOFPALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT Us ER FEE STuDYREPORT 3
• application processing) to a single user. Costs are estimated based on
interviews with agency staff regarding the time typically spent on specific
tasks and review of available records. The case study method was
employed for all fees except building fees.
• Tim and Materials: Services for which the City staff time requirement
varies dramatically are best recouped on a time and materials basis. We
have recommended time and materials charges for select fees within
Planning, Building and Engineering, We recommend the City adopt the
following policy for services recouped on a time and materials basis:
Concurrent with submittal of an application, the project applicant shall
pay deposit amounts (when specified) and enter into an agreement to fully
reimburse the City for processing costs. The City shall not be required to
perform any work on the application prior to receipt of the deposit and
execution of the agreement. The agreement shall also include a prozision
for amerdn,m to the agreement and scope of work to cozen work that
teas unforeseen or substantially exceeded estimates.
Under each approach, indirect costs are added to the direct costs of service
to calculate the user fee. Indirect cost figures are obtained from the City's
cost allocation plan, which is prepared by an independent consultant.
iDiscussions with City staff indicate that the case study method of calculating
fees is appropriate for most Planning and Engineering services. For Building,
however, our analysis takes two forms: 1) calculate full cost hourly rates for
staff and 2) identifythe fiscal impact of the newlyproposed fee structure.We
present below our work plan based on both of these methods and the City's
objectives for the study.
Fee Study Work Plan
The study work plan was guided by the City's objective of identifying the full
cost of each service for which a user fee may be charged. The work plan
consisted of a data collection task, the development of a fee model based on
the study's objectives and the data collected, benchmarking Palm Springs's
fees against comparable jurisdictions, and finally, the development of the
recommended fee schedule for each department. This report is the final
product of the study and describes its process, analysis and
recommendations.
Cost Identification
There are two distinct philosophies regarding the degree of cost recovery for
• service delivery. Some public officials argue that user fees should be based on
the amount of service directly rendered for a specific service. They state that
the cost of maintaining staffing and facilities to render those services upon
demand should be recovered from an agency's general fund.
MUNIFINANcraL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STLJDYREPORT 4
. The counter argument is that maintaining an "administrative infrastructure"
to provide services is as much a part of the government infrastructure for
which new development may be charged, as are new streets, utilities, and
other related infrastructure. In other words, fee-related services could not
occur without a staffed and supplied organization that is capable of meeting
the demands for services placed upon it by a particular individual or
development activity. This infrastructure is required to sustain the permitting,
application, inspecting and other services of the City. These costs are
required for the provision of services and can be recoverable from applicants
in the form of service fees.'
Data Collection
This fee study identifies three cost layers that, when combined, constitute the
fully burdened cost of a service. For the purpose of this study, the cost
layers are defined as: direct labor, departmental indirect labor, and central
overhead. These layers are defined as the following:
• Direct Labor. Staff hours spent directly on fee-related services. These
hours are related to costs as a burdened salary rate. This rate includes the
staff member's salary, plus benefits and taxes paid by the City.
• • Deparwrntal Indirect Labor. Staff hours spent on supervision and
departmental administration activities. This cost layer consists primarily
of secretarial staff, clerical staff, materials and supplies and portions of a
department head.
• Central Ozerhead. These costs represent those departments whose primary
function is to support other City departments. Central overhead figures
were established by an independent cost plan consultant. Central
overhead examples include:
— City Management;
— Treasury;
— City Attorney;
— Finance Department activities;
— Personnel Department; and
— Risk Management.
We interviewed all City departments that provide a user fee-related service.
Each appropriate City staff member received a uniformly structured form to
• complete. Staff was instructed to complete each form by filling in direct
labor time expended on fee-generating activities. Staff members were also
1 Michael Bouse,"FstaMshing Building Permit Fees", November;1995.
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOFPALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENI'USERFEE STUDYREPORT 5
asked to provide time spent on fee services that were not listed on the formal
fee schedule.
After completion of these surveys, each Department or Division Director
reviewed the responses, and confirmed and/or revised if necessary. These
surveys and other working papers have been given to the custody of the City
and document the time estimate data used in this analysis. In addition, we
worked with the City staff in modifying many of the fee categories to
accurately reflect the type of services provided by the service departments.
In some instances, fee categories were collapsed into fewer sub-categories for
ease of administration. In other instances fee categories were expanded to
improve the equity of the charge.
Part of the data collection task included a thorough review of relevant City
documentation, such as:
• City General Fund budget;
• Current City fee schedule;
• City consultant invoices;
• City correspondence related to fee services; and,
• Various City permit and application data.
The final type of data collected related to fees charged by similar jurisdiction.
This data was compiled into a comparison matrix. This matrix is a useful
resource in benchmarkvng Palm Springs' current and proposed fee schedule
against fee schedules from nearby jurisdictions. The jurisdictions included in
the fee matrix are:
• City of Indian Wells • City of Palm Desert
• City of Rancho Mirage • City of Cathedral City
• Riverside County • City of La Quinta
• City of Indio
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOFPALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDTREPORT 6
COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - PLANNING
This section describes the analysis of the cost of providing current planning
services to existing and potential applicants. The City's Planning and Zoning
Department provides these services at the request of property owners and
developers seeking to build, or enhance and change the current use of their
property.
Description of Services
The Department is responsible for administering the City's land use planning
and entitlement system; managing and coordinating the General Plan, and
Specific Plans. The Department also oversees California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review, and manages implementation through
annexation, precise plans, zoning, use permits, variances, and subdivision
maps. These latter current planning services are the primary focus of this
analysis.
• In addition, the Department has substantial responsibility for provision of
information in response to the general public, the Planning Commission,
Historic Site Preservation Board, Design Review Committee and the Council.
These activities are not related to specific development proposals.
Current Planning Services
Part of the department's services relate to the consideration of proposals by
property owners and developers that would result in changes to existing land
uses, often referred to as "current planning" services. The Department
provides certain current planning services including:
• Pre-application meetings between a potential project applicant and
staff planner to evaluate consistency of the project with the General
Plan and zoning ordinance, and to review relevant application
procedures;
• Preliminary design review of a project;
• General assistance for potential applicants;
• Beginning with submittal of an application, the division charges for its
• services, and it can be reimbursed for those services up to their full
reasonable costs; and,
• Neighborhood and community meetings for review of proposed
development projects.
MUNIFINANGIAL CITYWALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 7
S
Staffing
For the fiscal year 2002/03, the Planning Department consists of one (1)
Planning Manager, two (2) Principal Planners,four (4) Associate, or Assistant
Planners, one (1) Planning Technician and three (3) clerical positions. In
addition, the Department is supervised by the Director of Planning and
Zoning. It is important to note that Engineering staff expend significant
time on Planning Department activities. Where appropriate,this cost recovery
study allocates their time to Planning Department services.
naly,_sIs_aln , Recommendations
.
_ q qn a Mns
This study identified and assigned costs to over 75 existing, new or modified
planning fee services. Most of these existing fees are insufficient to cover the
actual cost incurred in service provision. As discussed above, the division
dedicates much of its time to two general areas: 1, pre-applicant time spent
on the front-end of potential development activity and, 2, reimbursable
current planning services tune, specifically the processing of development
permits and applications. This time allocation is typical for most local
jurisdiction planning departments. Based on our experience with cost of
service studies in other jurisdictions throughout California, it is not unusual
for planning departments to implement a significant increase in many fee-
generating service fees to ensure adequate and reasonable cost recovery.
We have recommended that most planning application fees be set at
100% cost recovery levels. Howeverforpolicy reasons, City staff would
like to subsidize several of the applications, particularly those they
wish to encourage or which may adversely affect homeowners, such as
residential antenna permits orgarage sale permits.
It should be noted that even with implementation of our fee
recommendations the cost recovery rate for current planning as a whole
will likely be less that 100% cost recovery due to non-fee related
activities. The department devotes significant time to two non-fee
activities: pre-application time with developers forprojects that do not
proceed to the application phase and activities directed by Council.
The latter group includes zoning ordinance review and amendments,
General Plan review and amendments, public information - citizen
inquiries and administrative reporting.
Newly Proposed Fees:
• Based on review of the Department's internal processes and fees charged by
similar jurisdictions, the Cityproposes institution of the following new fees:
MuNLFLNANcrAL CTTYoE PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE 9TVvYP_-PoR7'
• 1. Ani=ation- this is a process to incorporate unincorporated land into city
boundaries. We recommend a deposit plus time and materials fee for this
service.
2. Categorical Exenption - An environmental application asserting that a
development is exempt from CEQA review due to the land use category.
Proposed fee of $170.
3. Mitigation Monitoring- the Subdivision Map Act requires jurisdictions to
verify that mitigation measures are viable and working. We recommend a
deposit plus time and materials fee for this service.
4. Final Landscape Plan Check - review of landscaping plans. Proposed fee
of $480.
5. Final Planned Dezdoprr, w District - final land use review of proposed
development. Proposed scaled fee of $1,910 <5 acres; $3,000 >5 acres.
6. Parcel Map Waizer- proposed fee of $540.
7. General Plan Maintenance Fee- This fee is applied to building perinits and is
designed to fund the annual cost of maintaining the City's Long-range
plans (General Plan, Housing Element, etc.). New construction
• contributes to the need for periodic updates of these plans. Institution of
this fee would add approximately$2 to a patio cover permit, $123 to an
average single-family home permit and $614 to a $1 million valuation
office-building permit. Calculations are provided below:
General Plan Maintenance
Fee Calculations
Amortized Annual Cost of Long Range Plans Average Annual Building Construction Valuation:
General Plan and MEIR $50,000 (Based on latestfouryears ofconstruction valuation data)
Housing Element $10,000 1999/00 actual $86,813.002
2000101 actual $60,566,557
2001/02 estimate $74,203,848
Annual Cost $60000 2002/03 budget $170.000,000
4 year average: $97,645,952
Annual Amount to Fund via Fee: $60,000
Fee per$1,000 of Building Construction Valuation:
($60,000/$97,645,852)x$1,000: $0.61
Sample General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculations:
Prof.Type Valuation Fee
Patio Cover. $4,000 $2
SFR $200,000 $123
Office Building $1,000,000 $614
MUNIFINANCLIL CITYOPPALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER'FEE STUDPREPORT 9
COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - ENGINEERING
This section describes the analysis of the City of Palm Springs's cost of providing
engineering services to existing and potential applicants. The Engineering
Division provides these services to property owners and developers providing
public improvements as part of their development projects. The Engineering
Department is responsible for street, curb and sidewalk maintenance, signal
design and maintenance, capital project design for street, sewer and storm drain,
checking and approving City improvement plans, subdivision maps and lot line
adjustments, traffic information, legal descriptions and property information,
flood control information, construction inspection, public Right of Way
dedication and vacation.
>' bescripi,on ofia;rvices ,
The Development Review and Permit's and the Development Services
programs provide a variety of services related to land use and improvements
within the City (this report does not analyze the functions and costs
associated with City Capital Improvement Projects.) These programs are
responsible for the review and processing of plans, permits and applications
for land development. These services are the primary subject of this analysis.
The division provides the following engineering services:
• Engineering review of land development applications;
• Map checks of subdivision and parcel maps for compliance with state
and local ordinances;
• Plan checks of maps, grading and improvements, including
preparation of improvement agreements and bonding requirements;
• Encroachment permits (review of plans and inspection of incursions
into public rights-of-way);
• Site engineering review for new buildings and additions and remodels
and;
• Processing of certificates of compliance.
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT B
For the fiscal year 2003/04, the Engineering division consists of one (1)
Senior Civil Engineer, two (2) Associate Civil Engineers (1) Assistant Civil
Engineer, one (1) inspector, one (1) street maintenance manager, one (1) field
technician, one (1) Administrative Secretary, one (1) Secretary, and two (2)
temporary employees. In addition, the division is supervised by the Director
of Public Works.
Analysis.an ReC ,.,,endatio�s
Our analysis indicates that most Engineering fees are set below actual cost.
Noted exceptions are construction permit fees of high valuation, which are
presentlyset above actual cost. We hazy recommended fee adjustments to
arrive at an approximate 100% cost recovery status. For policy reasons,
City staff would like to provide a 20% subsidy on Encroachment
Agreements, Covenants and Minor Construction Permits.
In addition, we have recommended increases to Engineering's hourly rate
based fees. Analysis indicates that the hourly charges currently in place are
iinsufficient to recover the full cost of the personnel involved.
Fees Proposed For Deletion:
Based on discussion with City staff, the following fee categories are either
obsolete or inappropriate and should be deleted from the master fee schedule:
1. Appeal of Deowination Filing— $15.
2. Flood Jfmurance Rate Map Detm4nation- $15
Table II presents the total cost of each engineering fee related service, the
current fee charged, the proposed fee and benchmarks against similar
jurisdictions.
MUNIFINANCIAL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 14
COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS — BUILDING
This section describes the analysis of the City of Palm Springs's cost of
providing building plan check, permit and inspection services to existing and
potential applicants. The City's Building Division provides these services at
the request of property owners and developers seeking to build, or enhance
and change the current use of their property.
Descri�tio`r� of Services;
Under the direction of the Building and Safety Manager, the Department of
Building and Safety is responsible for, but not limited to, safety-and minimum
code compliance pertaining to the construction, materials, uses, occupancy,
location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the City. The
department also confirms compliance with zoning requirements for
approximately 60% of the City, that is, property located outside the purview
of architectural review. The Department provides such services as building
inspection, plan review, PM-10 dust control and storm water pollution
control review and enforcement, permit issuance, ADA compliance,
maintenance of real property records, community preservation (code
enforcement) and business license inspections.
The Department of Building and Safety produces reports and publications
including, but not limited to, monthly building activity reports, construction
detail handouts and building code ordinances.
Applicants occasionally request that a particular application be processed in
an expedited time frame. The Building Department accommodates such
requests by having theses applications processed by in house staff on an
overtime basis. Larger projects are sent to an outside consultant in San Diego
for expedited review processing.
Typically, building permit fees are based on the valuation (value) of the
proposed construction project. Building permit fees are used to offset the
costs of inspecting and documenting building construction. Plan review fees
are usually a percentage of the building permit fee and are usually established
by City Council resolution. The current City fee schedule uses this valuation
based system for non-residential projects only. Residential fees are based on
time and materials charges.
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 17
�7 7,........ .... . ..... .-
J,
For the fiscal year 2003/04,the Building and Safety Division of Development
Services consists of one (1) building manager, one (1) building inspection
supervisor, one (1) plans examiner, one (1) part time/temporary plans
examiner,two (2) senior budding inspectors,three (3) building inspectors, one
(1) community preservation coordinator, three (3) community preservation
officers, one (1) senior permit center technician, one (1) permit center
technician, one half (1/2) ADA coordinator, one half (1/2) records retention
specialist, one (1) administrative secretary, one third (1/3) secretary.
Analy� �"Fnppc mon'$,',"' san �', eqg.,!,n
The purpose for this analysis is twofold. First, it justifies fees for the
purposes of reconciling to City Council that Building fees are directly
proportionate to the cost of providing services. Second, it justifies the fees
for the purpose of showing compliance with the State of California Attorney
General's Opinion No. 92-506. In this opinion the Attorney General
determined that municipalities may not rely solely on the UBC fee schedules
but must demonstrate that building fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of
• providing service.
Our analysis recommends that ALL building services be recovered on a time
and materials basis. To facilitate cost recovery of 100% of the Division, we
have re-calculated hourly rates for budding and safety staff. These hourly rate
computations are presented in the next section under Table V.
Applicants occasionally request that a particular application be processed in
an expedited timeframe. The Budding and Safety Division can acconu-nodate
such requests with staff working overtime hours. We recommend an
Expedited Applications fee for this process whereby the deZk-loper
would pay for staff hourly charges on a time and a half basis.
Based on the newly revised hourly rates identified in Table V, we
estimate future Building Revenues will increase by approximately 15%,
Newly Proposed Fee:
1. Technology EnhanwnvntFee— This fee is applied to each building permit
and is designed to fund the cost of new technology required to
maintain a high level of service. Institution of this fee -would add
approximately $5.20 to a patio cover permit, $260 to an average
single-family home permit and $1,950 to a $1.5 million valuation
• office-building permit. Calculations are provided on the following
page.
MUNIFIN"CIAL CITYOT PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE S7VDYI?-IPORT 18
• Technology Enhancement Fee Calculations
Construction Valuation 1999-2003
YEAR Building Activity
1999 $ 56,295,818
2000 $ 85,813,002
2001 $ 60,566,557
2002 $ 74,203,848
2003 $194,869,344
Total $471,748,569
Five Year Average $ 94,349,714
I. Projected Annual Technology Costs for Development Services:
Description Cost QtyTotal Useful Life Annual Cost
(m years)
Permit Tracking System
Software $225,000 N/A $225,000 10 $ 22,500
• Hardware $ 30,000 N/A $ 30,000 3 $ 10,000
Hosting/Maintenance $ 44,200 N/A $ 44,200 1 $ 44,200
PDAs Lispectors/CPOs $ 2,500 15 $ 37,500 3 $ 12,500
Cellular Phones hispeciors/CPOs $ 85 15 $ 1,275 3 $ 425
Annual Cellular Phone Service $ 45 15 $ 525 1 $ 6,300
Large Format Plotter/Scanner $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 3 $ 5,000
Amoral GIS Subscription
County $ 4,000 N/A $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000
ESRI $ 3,000 N/A $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000
GIS Maintenance and Support $ 15,000 N/A $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000
TOTAL $338,830 $375,500 $122,925
H. Technology Enhancement Fee Calculation:
Calculated Rounded-off
Fee/$1,000 valuation $1.3003 $1.30
(Formula: Annual Costs/Average Construction Valuation x$1,000=Fee Charged)
IlI. Application of Technology Enhancement Fee on Sunple Projects:
Proieet Tyne Construction Valuation Fee Surcharz=e Paid
• Patio Cover $ 4,000 $1,30 $ 5.20
Single-Family Residence $ 200,000 $1.30 $ 260.00
Office Building $1,500,000 $1.30 $1,950.00
MUNIFIN"cIAL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 19
APPENDIX A: HOURLY RATE CALCULATIONS
This section presents the fully burdened hourly rates of City staff involved
with development user fee-related services.
Annual Salaries (a) —these figures reflect the annual staff salary
compensation.
Central Overhead Markup (b)—the central overhead figure is apportioned
across each staff category. Central Overhead represents indirect costs that
benefit all departments, such as City Management, City Attorney, City
Clerk and building depreciation. These costs are calculated in a separate
document titled "Cost Allocation Plan".
Direct Labor (c) —this column totals the Annual Salaries column and the
Central Overhead Markup columns.
Supervision and Administration(d)—this column identifies which staff(or
a percentage of staff) are supervisory or administrative in nature. These
costs are then added to the "admin and materials markup" calculation,
• which will be distributed in column e.
Departmental Indirect Markup (e) - this reflects costs that benefit the
entire department, but are not attributable to a specific application or
permit. These costs are apportioned across each staff category.
Fully Burdened Direct Labor (f) - this column identifies the full cost (i.e.
annual compensation, central overhead and departmental indirect cost) of
each staff position.
Direct Hours (g) —these figure represent the average number of hours that
an employee works in a standard year. These figures exclude vacation,
holiday, sick and other hours that can not be billed.
Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rates (h) —these figures identify the full
cost hourly rate for each staff position.
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 20
Table I. City of Palm Springs,Department of Planning and Zoning
staff Planning Less than Full Cost Options Recommended Fee Fees Charged by Other Cities
Director Planner Technician Engineering FY 2002 Existing °/of Rancho Cathedral Riverside
Service/Application $146 $174 $82 see eng. Total Cost Current Fee Unit Volume Subsidy(-) 80% 90% $ Full Cost Indian Wells Mirage City County La Quinta Indio
Avg.Time(Hours)
Administrative Minor Modifications 0.4 3.9 1.1 $0 $597 $350 46 -$11,367 $478 $537 $480 80% $176-$294
application$100;
annual pmt$850;
each newempl appl
$25;annualeach
empl$50;newsrack
appl$65,newsrack
Adult Oriented Business Permits 3.0 10.0 1.0 $0 $1,662 $950 $0 $1,330 $1,496 $1,660 100% annual pmt$10
$5,000 deposit Cost+$10,000
Annexation to Palm Springs(prepaid) t&m t&m t&m $0 deposit+Men $0 $0 reduced hayrate reduced hayrate +cnslfla cos 100% $2,200 $1,600 deposit
Antenna Permits '-_ _ - _ _
Homeowner 0.2 2 6 0.5 $0 $360 $60 $0 $288 $324 360 00 s$270; other$2280
Commercial 0.2 2.6 0.5 $0 $360 $105 $0 $288 $324 $360 100%.s$270; other$2280
Appeals of P.C.Decision 2.8 60 2.5 _ _ $1,304 $265 $0 $1,043 $1,173 $450 35% $200 $294 $964 base fee $175 $450
Architectural Approval
MinorAA-Staff 0.3 2.6 0.7 $71 $469 $10 -�5 100 -§36,400 $375 $422 $210 45%
Minor AA-PC 0.6 4.1 1.1 $71 $711 $210 100 -$50,102 $569 $640 $500 70%
Minor AA-reroof/repaint 0.0 0.3 $0 $27 $15 161 -$1,984 $22 $25 $30 100%
Major AA-50%to5AC 1.5 15.0 2.1 $1,028 $3,131 $1,050 3 -$6,244 $2,505 $2,818 $1,500 48%
Major AA-over 5 AC 2.1 18.9 2.1 $1,028 $3,664 $1,260 4 -$9,616 $2,931 $3,298 $3,660 100% Arch Comm R.
Major AA SFD-hillside 4.7 12.7 3.4 $375 $2,783 $790 3 -$5,980 $2,227 $2,505 $2,780 100% $300;Staff Rvw
Major AA SFD-non hillside 1.8 V266.7
1.3 $375 $1,521 $790 3 -$2,192 $1,216 $1,368 $1,520 100% $100 $376
Certification-PC or Historic 0.0 0.5 $0 $41 $25 $0 $33 $37 $40 100%
Change of Zone 11.8 3.5 $0 $5,457 $1,575 $0 $4,366 $4,912 $5,460 100% $1,600 $1,321 $1,600 $3,577 de osi[ $600 $3,500
Codes,Covenants&Restrictions 07 15 $1,80 $571 $265+a cost $0 $457 $514 $570 100% Review $447 ost+$7
fional Use Permit _ _ _ - -_ - - OdawConst-Type 1,to 5 over5 5.0 31 $670 $4622 $1,575 3 -$9,372 $3498 $4,060 $4,620 100%
ew Const-Type 1,oo5 AC 6.5 3.1 $670 $5,622 $1,575 3 -$12,142 $4,498 $5,060 $5,620 100%New Const-Type ll,to SAC 8.0 38 $670 $5,389 $1,575 3 -$11,441 $4,311 $4,850 $5,390 100% $9,g57+$5/la $2,000 gt,99New Const-Type 11,over 5 AC 101 3.8 $670 $6,521 $1,575 2 -$9,892 $5,217 $5,869 $6,520 100%Temporary Structures 1.5 3.1 $0 $757 $525 3 -$697 $606 $681 $760 100% $2,280 $693 Permit $1,600
Existing Buildings-Type1 4.6 19.3 3.6 $0 $3,162 $790 3 -$7,116 $2,530 $2,846 $1,500 47% res$270,core Extension $441 Revision $800
Planning Comm Determinations 0.8 4.3 0.8 $0 $675 $265 $0 $540 $608 $540 80%
$5,240+atty $1644 Cost+$5,000
Development Agreements 15.3 202 1 5 $278 $4942 $5,000+atty cost 1 $58 $4,193+any cast $4,717+atty cost cost 100% Extension $441 $3,600 deposit
Environmental Documents _ - --_ -
Categorical Exemption(propsd) 0 3 1.0 0.3 $0 $171 $0 $137 $154 $170 100% $100
Negative Decl./Minor Project 1.0 36.2 1 0.7 $0 $4,333 $790 $3,466 $3,900 $1,500 35-
Negative Deal/EA-to 5 AC 1.0 36.2 0.7 $608 $4,942 $790 $3,953 $4,447 $3,950 80% $1,400 EA$288 $550 $860
Negative Decl./EA-overSAC 3.0 50.0 1.0 $608 $6,841 $790 $5,473 $6,157 $5,470 80% $1,400
le I. City of Palm Springs,Department of Planning and Zoning
Staff Planning Less than Full Cost Options Recommended Fee Fees Charged by Other Cities
Director Planner Technician Engineering FY 2002 Existing k of Rancho Cathedral Riverside
Service/Application $146 $114 $82 see eng. Total Cost Current Fee Unit Volume Subsidy(-) 80% 90% $ Full Cost Indian Wells Mirage City County La Quinta Indio
Avg.Time(Hours)
Spenser $8,439 $2,400 Cost+$5,006
12%of consul
EIR or Major Study 0.0 0.0 0.0 $1,327 $1,327 12%of consult cost Previous $1,936 deposit
$1,0$0 $1,1$0 cost 100% cost+20% $446 EA $480 de osif
Mitigation Monitoring(propsd) 0.0 0.0 00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 deposit 161%
Garage Sale Permits 0.0 0.0 3.3 $0-$25770 $15576 370 -$3,548 $29 §22 $15 61
General Plan Amendment 11.3 27.0 3.5 $745 $5.770 $1,575 $4,616 $5,193 $5,770 100% $2,350 $2,055 $1,600 $7,333-8,160 dep $4,000 $5,500
General Plan$Zoning Letter 02 2.8 02 $0 $362 $85 $289 $326 $360 1D0% $89 $175
General Plan Maint Surcharge nla n/a We n/a $.617$lk rust. $0 $.49/$1k Gnat. $.55/$ikcnst. $.61/§1,000 new roust.
In-Lieu Parking Agreements 1.5 2.0 0.5 $0 $488 $315 $391 $439 $,00 100%
Final Landscape/Ext.Lighting(new) 0.3 3.3 0.8 $0 $482 $0 $385 $434 $480 100%
Land Use Permits 0.8 3.7 0.7 D $583 $420 34 - 5,543 $466 $525 $580 100% Extension $880
Lot Line Adjustment/Cerl of Compl. " ' -- _ 7777777 - _ - - _a
Staff Approval 0.5 25 0.0 „_ $6 _... _ �- .., .. -..- --- _. ..::- t< :-
$436 $795 $265 36 $715 $790 100/ -
CityCouncilApproval 1.5 3.0 0.0 $436 $998 $420 98 $898 $1000 100% $670 deposit $250 $240+$40/acre
Notification Charges, - ;,.- "- . - - - __ __
$55+$1/pcl+ - - - -
Regular 0.0 0.0 1.2 $0 $98 $55+$1/pcl+misc. 1 varies $79 $89 $275-25 adv 100%
Fast Track(propsd) 0.0 0.0 1.2 $0 $98 $55+$1/pcl+mist. 1 varies $79 $55+$1/pcl+
Review of Building Plans-Commercial
5 . Oa v 700/
$200k valuation project 0.2 3. 0.5 $531 $944 $150 $755 $850 $800 deposit 100%
$1 Mill valuation project 0.3 35
. 0.7 $531 $1,032 $590 $826 $929 $800 deposit 100%
$2 Mill valuation project 0.4 4.0 0.61$01$451
,112 -$940 $890 $1.001 $800 deposit 100%
$4 Mill valuation project 0.6 fi 0 1.0 386 $1 590 $1109 $7,248 $800 deposit 700%
Review of Builtlmg Plans-SFD - "` '_ ' =- - -- - - -1,200-2,000 sgit 0.3 3.0 $296 $236 $266 $300 700%
001-4,000 sq R 0.3 3.8 $364 Based on Project $291 $327 $360 100%
p01-6,000 sq ft a5 4.5 $442 Valuation $353 $398 $440 100%
over 6,000 soft 1.0 6.0 $638 $510 $574 $640 100%
Planned Development District -
ApplicationFee-underS AC81 26.8 3.34,507 $1,575 1 $2932 $3,605 $4056 $3,610 8D/
Application Fee-over 5 AC 162 536 65 ,014 $1,575 1 -$7,439 $T211 $8,112 $7,210 80% Prelim DevAmended/Revised PDD 05 4. 0.61,176 $790 2 -$772 $941 $1,058 $940 80% $1,174+$47lacre PUD
FlnaI PDD-to 5AC 47 14.5 062,385 $0 2 -$4,771 $1,998 $2,147 $1,910 80% >5 $2,400
Final Dev$1,145 PUD Amend$800
Final PDD-overS AC 6.0 18.2 0.62,999 $0 2 -$5,998 $2,399 $2,699 $3,000 100% +$30/acre>5 PUDFinal $800Use/Standards Amendment 03 3.3 0-3 $451 $265 $361 $406 $450 100%
Planning Commission Subscriptions " - 'e - "- - - - - - - - - -_ _ --_ - _ -
Agenda Only-+Minutes-falfee)
Agenda+Minutes-(annual fee) 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $115.50 $0 $0 $11550 100%
RV Parking Permit 04 31 0,6 $0 $467 $80 $369 $415 $460 100%
•
le I. City of Palm Springs, Department of Planning and Zoning
Staff Planning Less than Full Cost Options Recommended Fee Fees Charged to I Other Cities
Director Planner Technician Engineering FY 2002 Existing %of Rancho Cathedral Riverside
Service/Application $146 $114 $82 see eng. Total Cost Current Fee Unit Volume Subsidy(-) 80°/ 90% $ Full Cost Indian Wells Miraye City County La Quinta Indio
Avg.Time(Hours)
Re-inspections for Final Approval 0.0 1.0 1 0.0 $0 $114 $105 $91 $103 $110 100%
Resolution/Certification 0.0 0.3 0.5 $0 $79 $20 $63 $71 $80 107.
Resolution of ABC 1.4 4.3 0.5 $0 $743 $420 $594 $669 $740 100%
Searchlight Permits 0.1 0.8 0.5 $0 $139 $130 $111 $125 $140 100%
Sign Permits ._< --__ __-_ - ._
Return of unpen fitted sign 00 0.2 ( 3 $0 $40 $15 $32 $36 $40 100/ 157 of declared $40 $320 $100
Review and Approval . „ -_- __ _- -
By Planning Commission Pgm 0.3 2.1 0.5 $0 $551 $115 49 -$ 8,725 $270 $496 -%250max. -45%
By portaff 0.1 2.7 0.3 $0 $$67 $$25 40 -$8,894
Temporary Signs 0.0 0.5 0.0 $0 $57 $25 40 -$1,285 $270 $304 0%,$115 max. 34% $g30
$ $51 4% new use=$ 0;
Sign Variance 1.5 5.8 2.3 $D $1,077 $420+$110 sin part $861 61 $969 $800800 74% modlfv exist=$1000 $58
Specific Plan 55.3 89.8 4.0 $2,980 $21,644 $3k-$10k $17,315 $19,480 deposit 100% $2,300 $3,670 Plan $2,800 $18,327 deposit $4,000 $5,750
Specific Plan Amendment t&m t&m t&m $o deposit+t&m $0 1 varies reduced hilly rate reduced hrly rate deposit+t&m 100%
9 3.2 $0 $1,398 $340 $1,119 $1,258 $1,400 100% $1,400 $75
Subdivision Maps - ...,-__., - - - - - - _ __
Street Name pane _--" 67- _. .. .-___._ _ _- .__. _ � � - � _-. __ -.. __ -
c..., r.....,n...,,,, g-g -- �p �r - g $4_947 `$4F5�-$�Sflot $4477 $7;662 delete his $500+en .Cost $1,397-1547+ $1000
$1,397-1,547+
Ase r',-r re f4vlap& 0.9 2,0 0-.5 $4,,,353 $1,732 $475-$55llet $}'a@6 $3,559 delete n/a $400+en .Cost $77-104/lotdep $1,000
Petition for Reversion to Acreage 1.5 30 3.0 $0 $8D8 $210 $646 $727 $810 100% $977 deposit $400 $2,720
Revised Maps �' - _=_:r - . .._ _ _ __ _
Minor 1.5 3.0 3.0 -- - $0 $808 110+50%of mat - - _
Major 2.0 6.0 30 $0 $1,223 10+50%of map fee $646 $727 $220 100% NINE!
P $149 $9,167 $8,150 i00% 2000
Tentative Subdivision Maps` 13.1 46.0 3.8 $2,707 $10,186 $1,575 5 -$43,054 $8,149 $9,167 $8,150 80% $2,000 $2,800 $3,500 $4,475+$50/acre
$10,615-10,847+
Tentative Vesting Subdivision Maps 150 530 40 $2,707 $11,279 $79D 2 420,978 $9,023 $10,151 $9,020 80% cl$1500,sub$2000 $95-99/lot de p $4,475+$50/acre
entative Parcel Maps 11 3 28.9 3.8 $2,707 $7,960 $1,050 9 -$62,186 $6,368 $7,164 $6,370 80% $1,150 $234 $1,600 $2,720
reel Map Waiver(prcpsd) 1.0 2.0 2.0 $0 $538 $0 $0 $431 $485 $540 100%
nical Study Review 03 0.8 0.0 $0 $122 $55/hr varies $98 silo $120 100%
Technology Surcharge We We n/a n/a $1.30/ lk oust. $0 $1.04/$1kcnsL $.1.17/$ik cast. $1.301$1,000 new coast
Time Extensions 1.D 4.9 05 $0 $738 $265 1 -$473 $591 $665 $740 100% $640 $332-$685 Ten.Tract:$1,000 $1,600+$40/acre
Variance 1.4 11 2 38 $0 $1,790 $580 10 -$12,100 $1,432 $1,611 $1,000 56/ $765 $734 $1,600 1$1,349-2,574 dep
ZontngfCode Compl.Insp&Letter 0.5 3.0 0.8 $0 $477 $140 2 -$674 $382 $429 $380 80%
Total Subsidy -$371,058
1) Advertising costs based on 1/6 and 114 page ads in The Desert Sun Fast track projects typically require a 114 page ad
2)Tentative Subdivision Maps processed concurrent with PUP or CUP will receive a 50%discount due to redundancy of tasks
Sources:City at Palm Sprigs,MuniFinancial
•
• Table 11. City of Palm Springs,Engineering Fee Summary
Sr.Civil Traffic Eng Assoc St.Maint Planning Less than Full Cost Options Recommended Fee Fees Charged le Other Cities
Director Engineer Coord En ineer Eng Tech Manager Secretary Suppt Contractor FY 2002 Existing J of Rancho Cathedral
Service 137 141 82 83 74 95 44 114 Cost Total Cosl Current Fee Unit Volume Subsidy(-) 80% 90% ; Full Cost Indian Wells I alm Desert Mirage City La Quints Indio
Avg.Time(Hours)
Administration moon Fee(micrafilm) 025 $19 _ $15 $15 317 $19 100%
Construction Permits _,_._'. -- _ - - _ ._,�_ __r_- ._ _ - - - _ _ _ _
Minor(roadway,campsite,etc.) 0.50 0.50 $79 $50 {80 -$2,289 $63 �$71 $60 80%
$1-$2,000 valud0on -1 00 0.50 0.50 0.50 050 050 $355 $50 45 -$13,725 $284 $319 $285 80%
$2,001-$50,000 valuation 8.00 050 050 050 410 050 $1,fi43 $50+25%1$2k 22 -196,050 $1,315 $1,4]9 $350+25%>$2k 100% Street&StoYm
$50,0014200,OOp valuagan 18.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 12.00 0.50 $3,768 $1,250+2%>$5ok 21 $0 $3.015 $3.392 $1,650+2%>$50k 100% penm6=2%of
$200,001+valuation 90.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 60.00 0.50 $18.158250+1.5%>$200k 28 $0 $14526 $16342 ,T/0+t5%>$200k 100%sonst cost;Sewer&
Penally Fee ma File Ne File File n/a Wa No n/a File $290/offense $1fi0l offense $180/offense $200/offense 100% Water=l%of
Survey Covenant
0.50 $141 $30/hour $113 $127 $140lhour 100% cons[cost
Encroachments ration Fee 0.50 0.50 050 0.50 $171 _ $50/covenant no.shared $137 $154 $135/covenamt 80%
Agreement 0.50 400 0.50 §241 $751 ceement 24 $1,920 Si93 $217 $1SU.ecoment 00%meet Gres $1.50/If Strd Pon[ $10 $too-3%of lst $50penult+3%
License 050 050 400 050 0.30 $458 $150/a reemen[ 5 -$42 $366 $412 $4601. regime t 100% $95 Fxtensnind$5 $1A ucoals+2% fcostmd,sescn
ngineering Specie Purpose Fees ' -
Miscellaneous Inspections 0.50 0.50 $79 $50/hour $63 $71 579/hour 100%
loss/Staff time off business hours 0.75 0.75 $118 $]5/hour $94 $106 $118mour 100%
P 9 $50/hour $63 $71 $79/hour 10m6
erns .Call 2n 8 subsequent) O.Sp 0 50 $]
FloodIns Rate Map Determination Fee_` - ' -- - .. _ . _ ,' - - v�: - _ _ _ _ _
In One Flood Zone 0.25 $11 no share 202 $o $9 $to delete
In MuPlanhole Checkaras - _ 025 $11 S15/tl t rmm.lion 6 $0 $9 $1 _ dela
Gratlin9 Plan Check � "' '- �- � : _
less
15,00 an-4 ad of 0.25 0.50 1 00 1 00 a 25 2.00 $821 $285 $6501sheet 72 $1p.a00 $028 $695 $AO 100%
15,OOO sf-4 acres 0.50 0.50 200 2.00 025 2.00 $821 §1,285 $912.501shee[ 39 -$12,]]3 $1,026 $1,157 $1.290 t00% sfd=$195,other=
52601parcel
4'aIXes 100 100 4.00 400 025 6.00 $1,445 $2,362 $1605Isheel 22 514,630 $1,890 $$126 $2,360 100% $300-39]50
Improvement Plan Checks' -
3%
improvement
Street Plans 0.50 0.50 200 200 0.25 $535 $999 $6001sheet 29 $3.4fi0 5fi]0/sheet 8720/sheet $7]0/sheet 10p% .43%af Consl Cost $200-5400 costs
4ih resubmiHal 0.25 0.25 025 025 $26B $376 $300/sheet 1 $20 $260/sheet $300/sheet $320/sheet g00% time and marginal,
Sewer Plans 0.50 050 200 2.00 0.25 $438 $902 $5001sheet 13 -$1.924 $5801 sheet $6201 sheet $670/sheet 100% .43%ot Cons[Cosl
® 4th resubmiHal 025 025 0.25 0.25 $219 $328 g250/sheet $240/sheet $250/sheet $270/sheet 100% omeandmaterels
Sfonn Drain Plans 050 050 2.00 2A0 0.25 $535 $999 $600lsheet 6 -g8➢0 $670/sheet $7201 sheet 5]]0/sheet 100% 43%of Const Cost
4ih osubm19.1 025 025 0.25 0.25 $268 $376 $3001shee[ $280/sheet $300/sheet $320/sheet 100% ned.rdma[edals
Water Plans 025 0.25 D.251 0.25 0.25 $120 $15/sheet 5 5175 $50/sheet $5p/sh PCho$7ti
eet $60/sheet 100% 43%of Consl Cost ' Ins :3%of cos
4ih resubmi0al 0.25 0.25 $39 $7/sheet $20/sheet $20/sheet $20/sheet 100% Ymeantlmatenno
Signing B Sloping Plans 0.50 0.50 050 2.00 200 0.25 $438 $943 $500/sheet 3 -$501 $600/sheet $640/sheet $690/sheet 100%
44h resubmittal 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 025 $219 $3m $250/sheet $250/sheet g2713/sM1eet $280/sheet 100%
Traffic Sig/Lighting Plans 0.50 0.50 200 200 0.25 $535 $999 $600/sheet 1 -$145 $670/,heat $]20/,heel $770/s he.t 100%.
41h resubmiital 0.25 0.25 0,25 025 $268 $376 $3001s1beet 5280/sheet $3001 sheet g320/sheet 100%
Pir.acconal Re orl/Plans -' '''- ' '" - -p �s -`,=.- 'e= _:. ,:�, -=3 ":
ReProgrraPhis Sevces _ _ _ _ $127 $14 /h_0uap 100 $141 55pPoour 26 43,952 $113 r 1009
Setup Fee 0.08 $6 $5 unknown $5 $6 $fi 100%
Aerials 008 $6 $25 unknown $5 $6 $6L 100%
Additional copy p 08 $6 $3 unknown $5 56 $61 10o
Maps 008 $6 $41.$5 unknown $5 $fi 56 100%
Plans 0.09 $6 $3 cornered $5 $6 $6 100%
Photocopies -7777777777 Xerox
r Engineering 0.002 011 $31 a e unlmown $0 $0 $0-101 a e 100%
Standard
d copier 0002 p11 $0.101 a e unknoYvn gp $p $0.101 a e 100%
SubdMsion Map Check'
$1002pp`ee $750/aheet
Fling Fee $35 $500+$25011a
Final Parcel Map 050 10p 2.00 200 0.50 200 $631 $1,1]] $700 SOlshea[ 3 -$532 $T90l sheet $8401sheet $son 1sheat 1W% $b851shee[ Check $2,000 check fee
$100 app fee .$750/sheaf
Rri Tract Map 050 100 200 200 0.50 300 $1,000+$10/10
$8351 $1,361 $91250/sheet 14 -$3,297 $9]Olsheet $1040/sheet $1110/sheet 100% $565lsheei check fee
$urveyofs fe Comp Review
Lot Line Atli or Can of Compliance 0.50 4 01 O.Sp $38] one tannin 20 $310 $349 ee tannin 10p9$ $260/sheet $435/Ime g50llmf $25p
Street Vacation 1.00 200 200 200 L00 200 $777 $,no 9 -$2,491 5521 S699 $lap 100%
Total Subsidy -$80,096
Footnotes
1)These plans maybe"fast tracked" Such plans will be processed either by city staff on overtime duty,or by contract plan checkers Due to this additional cast,applicants will be charged 15 limes the normal amount for"fast track"serves
•
Sources.City of Palm Sprinnis,Mun'F mane al
• Table III. Planning &Zoning Hourly Rate Calculations
Indirect Cost Markup:
Central Overhead: $472,268 based on Cost Allocation Plan dated 2104104
Benefits 209,281
Materials&Supplies 34,200
Special Charges 113,662
Subtotal Indirect Costs: $829,411
Divide by Annual Salary(see below) $617,830
Indirect Cost Markup: 134.25%
Supervision&Admin Markup:
Supervision&Admin $466,519(includes 75%of Director,100%of Planning Admin Coord,100%of Senior
Secretary&100%of Secretary)
Divide by Direct Labor+Indirect Cost $915,079(includes 6 Staff Planners and 1 Planning Technician)
Supervision&Admin Markup 50.98%
Labor Analysis:
Annual Indirect Supv Fully Fully Burdened
Salary Markup Direct Markup Burdened Direct Hourly
134.25% Labor 50.98% Direct Labor ' Hours Labor Rates
a b c d e f 9
Position: a+b) (c+d) (a/f
Director 112,092 150,479 262,571 262,571 1,800 $146
Staff Planner 348,931 468,425 817,356 416,699 1,234,055 10,600 $114
Planning Admin Coard 49,631 66,628 116,259 116,259 1,800 $65
Planning Technician 41,718 56,005 97,723 49,820 147,543 1,800 $82
• Senior Secretary 40,496 54,364 94,860 94,860 1,800 $53
Secretary 24,962 33,510 58,472 58,472 1,260 $46
Total 617,830 829.411 1,447,241 466,519 1,913,760 19,260
Sources:City of Palm Springs;MuniFinancial
•
MUNIFINANCIAL CITYOF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 21
Table IV. Engineering Hourly Rate Calculations
Indirect Cost Markup:
Central Overhead: $318,315 based on Cost Allocatlon Plan dated 2104104
Benefla 253,664
Materials&Supplies 16,045
Special Charges 161,364
Subtotal Indirect Costs $749,388
Divide by Annual Salary(see below) $723,172
Indirect Markup: 103.63%
Supervision&Admin Markup:
Supervision&Admin $342,520(includes 75%of Director,Admin Secretary&90%of Secretary)
Divide by Direct Labor+Indirect Cost $1,060,744(includes 1 Sr Civil Engineer,1 Street Main(Mgr,2 Assoc Engineers,1 PW inspector,
1 Traffic Eng Coord,1 Eng Technician,1 Eng Assistant)
Supervision&Admin Markup: 32.29%
Labor Analysis:
Indirect Supv Fully Fully Burdened
Annual Markup Direct Markup Burdened Direct Hourly
Safary 103.63% Labor 32.29% Direct Labor Hours Labor Rates
a b c d e f g
Position. a+b) (c+d) (elf
Director 120,696 125,071 245,767 245,767 1,800 $137
Sr Civil Engineer 94,284 97,702 191,986 61,993 253,979 1,800 $141
Street Maint Mgr 63,466 65,767 129,233 41,730 170,963 1,800 $95
Assoc.Engineer 110,754 114,769 225,623 72,823 298,346 3,600 $83
Admin Secretary 42,978 44,536 87,514 87,514 1,800 $49
• PW Inspector 53,122 55,048 108,170 34,929 143,098 1,800 $79
Traffic Eng Coord 54,504 56,480 110,984 35,837 146,821 1,800 $82
Eng Technician 99,350 102,952 202,302 65,324 267,626 3,600 $74
Eng Assistant 45.450 47,098 92,548 29,884 122,432 1,800 $68
Secretary 38,568 39,966 78,534 78,534 1,800 $44
Total 723,172 749,388 1,472,560 342,520 1,815,080 21,600
Sources:Cry of Palm Springs;MuniFinancial.
•
MUNIFINANCIAC CI77OF PALM SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT USER FEE STUDYREPORT 22
Table V. Building &Safety Hourly Rate Calculations
Indirect Cost Markup:
Central Overhead: $190,547 based on Cost Allocation Plan dated 2104104
Engineering Support(10%of Eng Tech) $14,368
Benefits 338,371
Materials&Supplies 87,730
Special Charges 146,505
Subtotal Indirect Costs: $778,021
Divide by Annual Salary(see below) $934,113
Indirect Cost Markup: 83.29%
Supervision&Admin Markup:
Supervision&Admin $626,197(includes Manager,50%of Bldg Insp Supervisor,ADA Coordinator,Admin Secretary,
Sr Permit Center Tech,Permit Center Tech,Secretary&Retention Spclst).
Divide by Direct Labor+Overhead(see below) $1,013,582(Includes 2 Senior Building Inspectors,3 Building Inspectors,1 Plans Examiner
3 Comm Presery Officers&1 Comm Presery Coors)
Supervision&Admin Markup: 61.78%
Labor Analysis:
Indirect Supv Fully Fully Burdened
Annual Markup Direct Markup Burdened Direct Hourly
Salary 83.29% Labor 6178% Direct Labor Hours Labor Rates
a le c e f g In
Building and Safely a+b c+eif
B&S Manager 87,520 72,895 160,415 160,415 1,755 $91
Bldg Inspect Supervisor 78,952 65,759 144,711 144,711 1,755 $82
• ADA Coordinator 34,200 28,485 62,685 62,685 878 $71
Admin Secretary 48,420 40,329 88,749 88,749 1,755 $51
Comm Present Coord 65,868 54,861 120,729 74,587 195,317 1,755 $111
Senior Building lnsp 118,832 98,975 217,807 134,562 382,360 3,510 $100
Sr Permit Center Tech 58,640 48,841 107,481 107,481 1,755 $61
Solid Inspector 155,906 129,854 285,760 176,544 462,304 5,265 $88
Plans Examiner 55,848 46,516 102,364 63,241 165,605 1,755 $94
Comm Present Officer 156,540 130,382 286,922 177,262 464,184 5,265 $88
Permit Center Tech 50,363 41,947 92,310 92,310 1,755 $53
Secretary 10,367 8,635 19,002 19,002 527 $36
Retention Specialist 12,657 10,542 23,199 23,199 878 $26
Total 934.113 778,021 1,71 Q134 626,197 2 338,331 28,607
Fire Ins ectar
Fire Irate
Tech 66,720 55,571 122,291 75,552 117,843 1,755 $113
Total 66,720 55,571 122,291 75,552 197,843 1,755
1)this position is budgeted In the Fire Department Indirect markup(b)and supervision markup(a)factors are applied consistent with
Building and Safety markup percentages.
Sources:City of Palm Springs MuniFinancial
MUNIFINANCIAL C17YOFPALM SPRINGS DEPELOPMEN]'USER FEE STUDYREPORT 23
Table I. City of Palm Springs, Department of Planning and Zoning
Service/Application Current Fee Recommended Fee
Administrative Minor Modifications $350 $480
Adult Oriented Business Permits $950 $1,660
Annexation to Palm Springs(propsd) $0 cost
Antenna Permits
Homeowner $60 $60
Commercial $105 $360
Appeals of P.C.Decision $265 $450
Architectural Approval
Minor AA-Staff $105 $210
Minor AA-PC $210 $500
Minor AA-reroof/repaint $15 $30
Major AA-50%to5 AC $1,050 $1,500
Major AA-over 5 AC $1,260 $3,660
Major AA SFD-hillside $790 $2,780
Major AA SFD-non hillside $790 $1,520
Certification-PC or Historic $25 $40
Change of Zone $1,575 $5,460
Codes,Covenants&Restrictions $265+atty cost $570
Conditional Use Permit `
New Const-Type I,to 5 AC $1,575 $4,700
New Const-Type I,over 5 AC $1,575 $5,620
New Const-Type 11.to 5 AC $1,575 $5,390
New Canal-Type 11,over 5 AC $1,575 $6,520
Temporary Structures $525 $760
Existing Buildings-Type 1 $790 $1,500
Planning Comm.Determinations $265 $540
Development Agreements $5,000+at!Y cost $5,240 atty cost
Environmental Documents - -
Categorical Exemption(propsd) $0 $170
Negative Ded./Minor Project $790 $1,500
Negative Decl./EA-to 5 AC $790 $3,950
Negative Decl./EA-over 5 AC $790 $5,470
EIR or Major Study 12%of consult cost 12%of consult cost
Mitigation Monitoring(propsd) $0 deposit
Garage Sale Permits $15 $15
General Plan Amendment $1,575 $5,770
General Plan&Zoning Letter $85 $360
General Plan Maint Surcharge $0 $61/$1,000 new cons[.
In-Lieu Parking Agreements $315 $490
Final Landscape/Ext.Lighting(new) $0 $480
Land Use Permits $420 $580
Lot Line Adjustment/Can of Compl. -
Staff Approval $265 $790
City Council Approval $420 $1,000
Notification Charges'
Regular $55+$1/ cl+misc. $55+$1/pcl+$275.25adv
Fast Track(propsd) $55+$1/pcl+misc $55+$1/pcl+$550.50 adv
Review of Building Plans-Commercial -
$200k valuation project $150 $800 deposit
$1 Mill valuation project $590 $800 deposit
$2 Mill valuation project $940 $800 deposit
$4 Mill valuation project $1,590 $800 deposit
Review of Building Plans-SFD
1,200-2,000 sq ft $300
2,001-4,000 sq ft Based on Project Valuation $360
4,001-6,000 sq It $440
over 6,000 sq ft $640
Planned Development District -
Application Fee-under 5 AC $1,5751 $3,610
Table I. City of Palm Springs, Department of Planning and Zoning
Service/Application Current Fee Recommended Fee
Application Fee-over 5 AC $1,575 $7,210
Amended/Revised PDD $790 $940
Final POD-to 5 AC $0 $1,910
Final POD-over 5 AC $0 $3,000
Use/Standards Amendment $265 $450
Planning Commission Subscriptions
Agenda Only-(annual fee) $52.50 $52 50
Agenda+Minutes-(annual fee) $115 50 $115 50
RV Parking Permit $80 $460
Re-inspections for Final Approval $105 $110
Resolution/Certification $20 $80
Resolution of ABC $420 $740
Searchlight Permits $130 $140
Sign Permits -
Return of unpermitted sign $15 $40
Review and Approval
By Planning Commission Pgm $210 $250
By Staff $115 10%,$115 max.
Temporary Signs $25 $25
Sign Variance $420+$110 sign pmt $800
Specific Plan $3k-$10k deposit
Specific Plan Amendment $0 deposit+t&m
Street Name Change $340 $1,400
Subdivision Maps -- ,
Fine Tr G Mape $475+455/let delete
Final-Parcel-Maps $47.5+456/14 delete
Petition for Reversion to Acreage $210 $810
Revised Maps
Minor $210+50%of map tee $810
Major $210+50%of map fee $1,220
Tentative Subdivision Maps` $1,575 $8,150
Tentative Vesting Subdivision Maps $790 $9,020
Tentative Parcel Maps $1,050 $6,370
Parcel Map Waiver(propsd) $0 $540
Technical Study Review $551hr $120
Technology Surcharge $0 $.75/$1,000 new const.
Time Extensions $265 $740
Variance $580 $1,000
Zoning/Code Com I.Insip&Letter $140 $380
1) Adverbsmg casts based on 118 and 1/4 page ads in The Desert Sun. Fast track projects typically require a 1/4 page ad.
2)Tentative Subdivision Maps processed concurrent with PDP or CUP will receive a 50%discount due to redundancy of tasks.
Sources:City of Palm Springs;MuniFinancial.
Table II. City of Palm Springs, Engineering Fee Summary
Service Current Fee Recommended Fee
Administration Fee(microfilm) $15 $19
Construction Permits
Minor(driveway,dumpster,etc.) $50 $60
$1-$2,000 valuation $50 $285
$2,001-$50,000 valuation $50+2.5%>$2k $350+2.5%>$2k
$50,001-$200,000 valuation $1,250+2%>$50k $1,650+2%>$50k
$200,001+valuation $4,250+1.5%>$200k $3,770+1.5%>$200k
Penalty Fee $200/offense $200/offense
Survey Inspection $80/hour $140/hour
Covenant Preparation Fee $50/covenant $135/covenant
Encroachments
Agreement $75/a reement $190/a reement
License $150/a reement $460/agreement
Engineering Special Purpose Fees '
Miscellaneous Inspections $50/hour $79/hour
Insp./Staff time off business hours $75/hour $118/hour
Reinsp.Call(2nd&subsequent) $50mour $79/hour
Flood Ins Rate Map Determination Fee -
In One Flood Zone no charge delete
In Multiple Zones $15/determination delete
Grading Plan Check
less than 15,000 sf $600/sheet $770
15,000 at-4 acres $912.50/sheet $1,290
4+acres $1,605/sheet $2,360
Improvement Plan Checks'
Street Plans $600/sheet $770/sheet
4th resubmittal $300/sheet $320/sheet
Sewer Plans $500/sheet $670/sheet
4th resubmittal $250/sheet $270/sheet
Storm Drain Plans $500/sheet $770/sheet
4th resubmittal $300/sheet $320/sheet
Water Plans $15/sheet $60/sheet
4th resubmittal $7/sheet $20/sheet
Signing&Striping Plans $500/sheet $690/sheaf
4th resubmittal $250/sheet $280/sheet
Traffic Sig./Lighting Plans $600/sheet $770/sheet
4th resubmittal $300/sheet $320/sheet
Professional Report/Plans Consultant cost+
Staff review' $50/hour $141/hour
Reprographic Services
Set up Fee $5 $6
Blueprinting -
Aerials $25 $6
Additional copy $3 $6
Maps $4 to$5 $6
Plans $3 $6
Table II. City of Palm Springs, Engineering Fee Summary
Service Current Fee Recommended Fee
Photocopies
Xerox 2510 Engineering Copier $3/pa e $0.10/pa e
Standard copier $0.10/pa a $0 10/page
Subdivision Map Check
Final Parcel Map $700.50/sheet $900/sheet
Final Tract Map $912 50/sheet $1110/sheet
Lot Line Adl or Cart of Compliance see planning see planning
Street Vacation $500 $780
Table III. City of Palm Springs, Building Fee Summary
Service Current Fee Recommended Fee
B&S Manager $91
Bldg Inspect Supervisor $82
ADA Coordinator $71
Admin Secretary $51
Comm Presery Ccord $111
Senior Building Insp $100
Sr Permit Center Tech $61
Build Inspector $76.30 $88
Plans Examiner $83 75 $94
Comm Presery Officer $88
Permit Center Tech $53
Secretary $36
Retention Specialist $26
Footnotes:
1)These plans may be"fast tracked". Such plans will be processed either by city staff
on overtime duty,or by contract plan checkers. Due to this additional cost,applicants
will be charged 1.5 times the normal amount for"fast track"service.
• RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE 2003/04 DEVELOP-
MENT USER FEE STUDY AND COST
ALLOCATION PLAN AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO
AMEND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
FEE SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY
WHEREAS, Govemmnent Code Sections 65104, 65909.5, 66014 and 66451.2 allow the
City to establish fees to offset the City's administrative costs in processing permits,
licenses, subdivision maps and entitlements; and
WHEREAS, the City retained MuniFinancial to prepare a Development User Fee Study
and Cost Allocation Plan(hereinafter Study) to compare direct and indirect
administrative costs in providing various services to the community a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Study and supporting data were available for public inspection and
• review for ten(10) days prior to this public hearing; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been noticed and held in accordance with Government
Code Section 66018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information provided to it by those
testifying, and has reviewed and considered the information provided in the staff Study
and staff presentation and has read and considered the Study and supporting data.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
Section 1. Findings:
The Council makes each of the following findings:
A. The purpose of the processing fees is to support those City services which are
undertaken as a direct or indirect result of members of the public using the
services of the City, in particular the services of permits, licenses, subdivision
maps and entitlements.
B. After considering the Study and supporting data and the testimony received at
is incorporates
public hearing, the Council approves and adopts the Study and
incorporates the fees herein, and further finds that future development in the
• City of Palm Springs will generate a continued need for the services specified
in the Study.
C. The Study and the testimony establish:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the
type of service for which the fee is imposed; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the type of service for which
the fee is imposed; and
3. The amount of service provided does not exceed what is reasonably
necessary in order to process the requested service; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable and best
approximate the direct and indirect (overhead) costs of City staff and
consultants for providing the necessary service to respond to the public's
requests.
D. The method of allocating the City's administrative costs of processing service
bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each member of the public's burden
on, and benefit from, the services requested by that member.
E. The fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
• for which the fee is charged.
Section 2. Fees Imposed:
A. The City Clerk shall amend Resolution 20362, which establishes the City's
Comprehensive Fee Schedule, to incorporate the processing fee set forth in the
Study.
B. Each person requesting a service in the City of Palm Springs for which a fee is
imposed pursuant to the Study shall pay the new fee as set forth in the City's
Comprehensive Fee Schedule.
C. On July 1st of each year, the fees shall be automatically adjusted by an
amount equal to the percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price
index for this region, as last computed before the July 1 st date.
D. The fees may also be adjusted if the City updates or modifies the Study and
conducts a public hearing to implement a new or revised fee or fees based
upon such update or modification.
E. The applicable fee shall be determined on the basis of the fee schedule in
effect at the time the application is submitted to the City for the requested
set-vice. The fee shall be payable in full at the time the application is
submitted.
• F. The adoption of this Resolution does not affect the ability of the City to
request an agreement between the applicant and the City to pay extraordinary
processing costs and to establish deposit accounts.
G. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the fee for copying public
records requested by a member of the public, shall not exceed the direct costs
of duplication.
Section 3. Fee Ad ustment or Waiver or Reimbursement:
A person subject to the fee imposed pursuant to this Resolution may apply to the City
Council for adjustment to that fee, or a waiver of that fee, or reimbursement of part or all
of the fee, solely by following the written protest procedure in the time and manner
provided by Government Code Section 66020 and detailing the reasons for the
adjustment, waiver or reimbursement.
A. A person subject to the fees imposed pursuant to this Resolution that desires
an adjustment or waiver of such fees shall follow the protest procedure
contained in Government Code Section 66020 (as maybe amended), and
within the time fiarne set forth in subsection(d) thereof(as may be amended)
or risk the loss of the legal ability to request such adjustment or waiver. In no
event shall the City waive its right to rely on other applicable limitations
periods, including without limitation those set forth in Government Code
Section 66022 (as may be amended).
B. A person may apply to the City Council for an adjustment to the fees by filing
an application with the City Clerk. The application shall be made in writing
and must identify the reasons why the City's processing fees should be
adjusted. At a minimum, the reasons should explain why a reasonable
relationship is lacking between the service provided by the City, the costs
incurred by the City for such service and the fees imposed by the City for such
service.
C. The application shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than the deadline for
filing protests as mentioned in subpart A. above. The City Clerk will present
the application to the City's Finance Director or designee.
D. The City's Finance Director, or designee, shall make a written determination
on the application. The City's Finance Director, or designee, may authorize an
adjustment so long as the adjustment does not exceed Ten Percent of the total
amount of fees sought to be imposed by the City. Recommendations by the
City's Finance Director, or designee, for adjustments in excess of Ten Percent
will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. The method and
timing of implementing the adjustment is subject to the discretion of the
City's Finance Director(or designee) or City Council where applicable.
E. Any adjustment granted is limited to the project as proposed. If there is any
change in the project, the fee adjustment is suspended so that the City's
Finance Director, or City Council where applicable, may re-evaluate where
the adjustment is still appropriate.
F. Decisions of the City's Finance Director, or designee, are subject to appeal to
the City Council so long as such appeal is made in writing and within 10 days
of the decision.
Section 4. Use of Fee Revenues:
The revenues raised by payment of these fees, along with any interest carried, shall be
used to pay for the City's administrative costs spelled out in the Study, including without
limitation the capital costs and labor and contract costs directly or indirectly associated
with providing the requested service.
Section 5. Subsequent Analysis of the Fees:
The fees established herein are adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance on
the comprehensive studies that have been prepared by the City and consultants to the
City. During the coming years, the City will continue to gather additional information
that may affect the nature, scope and type of services to be provided in response to
• requests of the public. Notwithstanding any term or condition of any permit, subdivision
map, license or entitlement granted by the City, it is existing policy that the City Council
may revise the fees to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies, as well
as increases due to inflation, and that such revisions shall apply to any prior approved
projects, as well as new projects.
Section 6. Effective Date of Revised Fees:
The fees shall be effective sixty(60) days after the adoption of this Resolution; provided,
however, that, upon enactment of this Resolution, any person may pay the revised fees
instead of the current fees.
Section 7. Severability:
Each component of the fees and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the fee or other provision of this Resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully
effective, and the fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged
to be invalid.
Section 8. Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEOAZ
• The City Council finds that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of this Resolution,
pursuant to Sections 15061 and 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because:
• A. The fees established by this Resolution will be collected for the purposes of
meeting operational expenses and maintaining service to those that request it; and
B. Because the fees authorized by this Resolution will be collected at the application
stage of the project, CEQA review will take place during the processing of the
project. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this
Resolution establishing processing fees will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 9. Statute of Limitations:
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the fees
established by this Resolution, or the Resolution itself, shall be cormnenced within one
hundred twenty(120) days of the passage of this Resolution. Any action to attack an
adjustment adopted pursuant to Sections 2 or 5 shall be commenced within one hundred
twenty(120) days of the adjustment.
ADOPTED this 171h day of March, 2004
AYES:
NOES:
• ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
By:
City Clerk City Manager
Reviewed and approved: